Harry Potter: exactly like the book, pretty damn close to what I imagined... BORING MOVIE.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Yeah, I don't think they'll make more than 3 of these. And, I bet they combine the horrible book 2 with book 3 to make an interesting sequel to this first one. Too damn long. I can't believe it's only me and my gal that were bored. People were fidgeting all over. I predict after a week of "it's a great movie" to hear a lot of "it's too long, but it's good... it's just long". In other words, the movie sucks. To me, if you're just waiting to see the next scene to see what they made it look like on screen, but other than that you're bored off your ass, the movie blows.

― Nud eSpock, Saturday, 17 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

My HP loving coworker said in contrast '2 hours and 40 minutes just flew by,' so go figure. Not having read the books, I will not be seeing the movie.

― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 17 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Ya know, it's odd. The BOOK flew by. During the movie, I just kept thinking, "oh man this is EXACTLY like the book, word for word, scene for scene. Shit, there's a LOT more still to come. By the time the story started taking off, I was feeling like a 10 year old who ate too much sugar.

― Nude Spock, Saturday, 17 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Jeez, Spock, get a grip. This is a kids' movie, and kids like to see movies stick pretty close to the books on which they're based--I know I did when I was little. And it IS "waiting to see... what they made it look like on the screen"--to see it come alive visually. I saw it in a theater full of kids, and they seemed pretty damned happy and excited, not fidgety. And seriously, 2 1/2 hours is not that long--I feel sorry for you if you can't sit through a 2 1/2 hour long movie, especially when a theater full of 10 year olds can!

― Clarke B., Saturday, 17 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

What Clarke isn't saying is that he's five years old.

― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 17 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Clarke, you sound like you're itching for a smack. I like kids movies and I can sit through long movies if they're good.

― Nude Spock, Saturday, 17 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I can't sit through movies at all at home. I have no attention span. I only can in a movie theater because i can't just walk off to the computer or a book or something. So I sympathize...but I still want to see Harry!

― Maria, Saturday, 17 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

What Clarke isn't saying is that he's five years old.

Well, I'M not five, but my date was...

― Clarke B., Saturday, 17 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

i saw it today and it was an aesthic marvel and it flew by and parts of it were haunting but it seemed to be cold except for Haggarid .

― anthonyeaston, Sunday, 18 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Saw it last night in Waikiki. Was actually pleasantly surprised; I actually thought it would suck. It wasn't so bad. Tonight Shallow Hal which will definitely suckah.

― helen fordsdale, Sunday, 18 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I look forward to it, it is, after all, the famous five of the new millenium.

― Menelaus Darcy, Monday, 19 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I plan on remaining immune to everything Harry Potter! I think I will hybernate this winter.

― james, Monday, 19 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I look like Harry Potter according to mad blind crone Sarah Clarke but I dont intend to go to the cinema in order to check this out.

― Tom, Monday, 19 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Harry potter when he is older = tim henman with glasses. 'nuff said.

― james, Monday, 19 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

geoff will check it out for you

― mark s, Monday, 19 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Stop flirting to try and get Geoffs attention Tom, you are a TAKEN MANG.

― Sarah, Monday, 19 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Bah. If I just listened to more INDIE then nobody would care about such trivialities and Geoff would be mine!

― Tom, Monday, 19 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

If they combine books two and three the film'd be about 5 hours long! Though I like the idea of drawing it out longer and longer - like making 6 year olds sit through "Heimat". Hehe.

― Mark C, Monday, 19 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

the description at CAPalert almost makes me want to bother. there's even a delish typo about seeing children "creaming" which sounds nice.

― Alan Trewartha, Monday, 19 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I was comtemplating seeing it, but then the annoying nerdy brats made me miss the film I was going to see (Ghost World - yum indie gurls) because they made me queue for half an hour when I wasn't even going to see the HP movie, and now never will. Grrr.

Saw Amelie instead - lovely.

― Graham, Monday, 19 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The Harry Potter film, boring? Oh surely not.

I went to see 'The Piano Teacher' this weekend, and you can stuff yr wizards and goblins and whatnot - give me arty Austrian depresso- fests with Isabelle Huppert (greatest living actress?) any bloody day. The bit w/ the razor is possibly the most uncomfortable thing I have ever seen in a fiction film.

― Andrew L, Monday, 19 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Thora Birch in Ghost World (misogynist that I am I TWICE mistyped that as "Thora Bitch") doesn't look as fanciable as I thought she might.

― Tom, Monday, 19 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I loved Harry Potter. Didn't notice the time and was sad when it was over. Yeah, it stuck pretty close to the book but since when is that a bad thing? the quidditch scene was brilliant.

― Samantha, Monday, 19 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Harry Potter was not boring. It was the most exciting and brilliant movie of all time, though my opinion of this might be skewed by the fact that I saw it after seeing Waking Life, which was so horrible and pointless that me and Ramon literally ran up the street from the art house theatre back to Sony Loews and bought scalped tickets to Harry Potter because we were so desperate to get that rubbish out of our brains. So honestly I think even 13 Ghosts or The One would've been brilliant seen under those circumstances. But I still do think it was quite good, regardless.

― Ally, Monday, 19 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Having to buy scalped movie tickets reminds me of why NYC can be such a sad place to live.

― Samantha, Monday, 19 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

My cute new friend wants to go see it tomorrow night... ah, I guess I'll go, how bad can it be, but two and a half hours long... the entire time I'll be thinking "how much longer before we get to go back to my place and make out?"

― Sean, Monday, 19 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Six year old should be made to sit through The Sorrow And The Pity instead.

― Ally C, Monday, 19 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

tom has obv. become MENTALIST SUPREME. i prescribe massive infusions of betty and veronica comics and the second beta band ep.

― jess, Monday, 19 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The movie has great effects and is true to the book. My girlfriended worded the problem perfectly and I forgot to mention it here. The dialogue is "book dialogue". When books are adapted to film, usually there is a compensation made between the heavy narration/lack of dialogue that occurs in books. I just thought it was bad child acting, but it was bad dialogue. Also, Harry Potter quit being amazed after the train ride. The entire movie should have seemed "magical", rather than matter-of-fact. The book conveyed that feeling. The movie was too anal, basically. And, yeah, sadly the Quidditch scene was my favorite in the entire movie. In the book, it was my LEAST favorite thing. Quite boring, I thought, it went on and on... who cares about silly witch sports? Anyway, the movie seemed rushed toward the end because there was less dialogue, so the scenes that were explained very well by book narration (i.e. the dark woods, the end scenes) were quickly passed over, when, in fact, these scenes were more interesting and more important as plot elements than the 20 minutes dedicated to Quidditch. Kinda reminded me of the pod racing in Star Wars 1, which I hated.

Anyway, when I said the movie "sucked", I didn't mean that it is completely without merrit. I believe I pointed out it's good points. But, it could have been way better. The book was!

― Nude Spock, Monday, 19 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Too late Jess! Back to conventional definitions of attractiveness for me, har har!

― Tom, Tuesday, 20 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

nine years pass...

this film was so terrible it put me off seeing the rest of the series for 9 years, until this weekend when I watched all of them (save the one in theaters now) over two days; I'm glad to say they improved massively after the second one. I guess it makes sense that Columbus did the first two, they are 'soft' and very kid friendly, whereas by Half Blood Prince, i don't know that anyone under the age of 12 could watch them and not have nightmares.

― akm, Sunday, 5 December 2010 16:40 (fifteen years ago)

Me too. I'd read 2/3 of the first book and given up in boredom, then sat through the horribly turgid film and STUPID headmaster ex machina ending and never bothered with anything else ever again. Might give #3 a try at some point though.

― one-time Perrier winner Frank Woodley plays a loveable dad (Autumn Almanac), Sunday, 5 December 2010 20:55 (fifteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.